Hi Tony, All, Message received. I observed that Chris requested a WG adoption call for draft-many-lsr-power-group few hours ago.
I believe we should, as Chris proposed, give the normal route a chance. If that doesn’t work, we can unpack the situation together and converge on the next steps. G/ ________________________________ From: Tony Li <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 8:12 PM To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; "“[email protected]”" <[email protected]> Cc: Les Ginsberg <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi, We still seem stuck. Could I get some AD help, please? Thanks, Tony On Aug 7, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, It's now two weeks after the meeting. Could the chairs please proceed? Thanks, Tony On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 2:30 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can we please pause this discussion until after the meeting? I don’t think anything helpful is going on here that benefits the document or the WG. No one is raising bars on whims and no one is end running. Thanks, Chris. On Jul 20, 2026, at 22:47, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tony – I think Chris and I have expressed the same point. I also think you seem to want to “pick a fight” – and I am not interested in that. I will call your attention to the following from RFC 7120. Although RFC 7120 is not directly applicable in this case, it is related and the concern expressed there seems very relevant to this case. From https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7120.html#section-5 “There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document could be used as an end-run on the IETF process to achieve code point allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for a protocol extension for a particular company or for another Standards Development Organization even though it might be predicted that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is documented.” Les From: Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:05 PM To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group Chris, Les, I wrote that code points "do not require adoption". That is accurate. A 'SHOULD' is not a 'MUST'. You don't get to change it into one. What I wrote originally was correct. I respect the 'SHOULD' and the work the experts do, but the fact of the matter is that we have code, and it is going to ship regardless of adoption. At this point, I cannot stop it. So, this is really up to you. You can allocate, or we can squat. Waiting is out of the question. Your choice? Regards, Tony On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:56 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Expert hat on: I do not believe Les is raising the bar. We (reg experts) have followed the SHOULD advice rather consistently. We have always pushed for WG adoption first. It’s why I mentioned the order, adoption and then allocate, during the presentation. Yes, SHOULD is not MUST, but it’s also not MAY. :) I think it’s worth giving the normal route a chance here before we look to the exceptional one. Thanks, Chris. On Jul 20, 2026, at 20:12, Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Les, What I wrote is correct. Please read what you quoted. That's a SHOULD, not a MUST. You don't get to raise the bar on a whim. Tony On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 6:36 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at cisco.com<http://cisco.com/> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tony – I don’t want to start an argument – just want to set the record straight. https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml states: “Note For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated experts can be found in [RFC7370].” https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 states: “2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.” So what you say below is not correct. Les From: Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM To: lsr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group Hi, I would like to formally request that we start an adoption poll of draft-many-lsr-power-group. I would also like to formally request code point assignment for this document. The relevant code points are all under "Expert Review" and do not require formal adoption before code point allocation. We would greatly prefer not to squat on code point values if we do not have to. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
